Does NYC ad campaign prevent pregnancy or encourage abortion?
On the one hand, it’s important to keep teens informed about risks of pregnancy, ways to prevent pregnancy, and challenges they will face if they become pregnant.
On the other hand, teens should know what resources are at their disposal during pregnancy and, at least as important, that choosing life is the right thing to do….
Imagine a pregnant teen. She feels as if the rug has been pulled out from under her. She’s completely frightened, and unsure where to turn.
Will these ads encourage her to choose life?
Preventing abortion means preventing pregnancy and supporting mothers.
Ad campaigns like this ignore half of the equation – probably because the goal is just to prevent birth.
~ LN, discussing the New York City Human Resource Administration’s new teen pregnancy prevention program “in which ads [including the one pictured above] will be displayed in subways and bus shelters citywide,” Secular Pro-Life Perspectives, March 6
NYC currently has a 40% overall abortion rate.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Id say it promotes abortion. So sad..just saw a law was passed about the heart beat bill….it went across the news.
How about adoption? If a teen gets pregnant 55 choose single parenting 25 % abortion and less than 1 % adoption
Exactly. I posted this a couple days ago on facebook because I had the same concerns. These ads paint babies as some impossible burden. Well if you’re a sexually active teen I’d say it’s better to get pregnant than get an STD. The problem is the sex not the babies. Teens shouldn’t be having sex. They can’t handle it.
Does anyone notice the reproachful tone of this ad? It has the bbay’s own suffering lament, which most women feel at the nerve level. Then–it has a crime-scene like yellow strip across the image of the toddler. This reminds me of the slashing diagonal bar across an image, such as no smoking allowed. Having the child is the crime; the pregnant woman is the offender. Also, did you notice the toddler is African American? Target locked on.
“I might not graduate high school, so you should probably just kill me now” ..Yep. Sounds like Satan.
Right Amanda…….poor kid. My friend became pregnant at 16. She got her GED and today she owns and operates her own dog grooming bussiness!
Sorry for typos
Inb4 “derp derp derp Andrea Yates derp derp Elanor Cooney derp derp derp”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Navi, you just made my day, buddy. XD
I am offended by the tone of this ad. It says to me ::: RESPONSIBLE people do not Raise CHILDREN here in NY-city. … a teen (cannot possibly be RESPONSIBLE + pregnant …. just cannot be)! I kinda wonder, how many folks in the NY populace came from married and non-married teens only 2-3 generations back!
U are making these comments because it is NYC the abortion capital. These are all true statements. Would this make teens consider abstinence? Have we given up on that? I will say it again why do less 1% of teens who get pregnant choose adoption? 2MM couples waiting to adopt. Examine ur views on adoption,your language on adoption. Do u have a bias against adoption?
As a teen mom this makes me furious. My life was NOT ruined by my child and HIS life will be spectacular I’m sure of it. Why? Because I’m actually a great mother. And there are TONS of great teen moms out there who aren’t partying and ignoring their children.so stupid and ignorant
Not really a big fan of scare tactics, I don’t think they work the way they are intended. Like those stupid anti-pot ads with people running over kids or letting them drown while they’re babysitting because they smoked a joint. I don’t know anyone who ever listened to them, most potheads I know just make fun of them. I think education is better for preventing teen pregnancy or other undesirable circumstances, not “zomg your baby will SUCK”. I do think that this ad would encourage abortion if anything.
I think education is better for preventing teen pregnancy or other undesirable circumstances, not “zomg your baby will SUCK”. I do think that this ad would encourage abortion if anything.
I agree with you to a certain extent, but what people don’t realize is that many young women get pregnant “accidentally on purpose.” In some communities, it’s the norm. When I was growing up way back, in ye ancient seventies, it was NOT the norm. Most of my friends were not sexually active because it just wasn’t the thing to do.
These ads state facts. Less than 1% of teen mothers will graduate from college. Most won’t even graduate from high school. Children born to teenagers do statistically worse in life by most standards, and they are the true victims of a society that glorifies teen parenthood. So many teens think that a baby will be a fun addition to their life without thinking about the long term consequences. This puts things in a more realistic persoective than Hollywood does. Abortion is a separate issue. These ads are just the part of the equation. Empowering teens with the tools so they don’t become parents now is the next step. Preventing pregnancies and adoption are important as well. Abortion does not have to be the default alternative to a life of poverty.
Nicole. No one is glorifying teen pregnancy I can tell ya that. Everyday I dread going to the store because of the nosey questions I get asked. They try and calculate my age and are rude. No one says…your a teen mom good for you! We should be teaching girls to take responsibility and create empowering programs that aren’t shaming but genuinely trying to make the best of their situation. Because if you actually talk to teen moms…not the ones on MTV you will find they are going thru some of the same challenges as a thirty five year old mom. The only one who gets to judge is God. Becoming a mother at this age may not have been the ideal thing to do, but it’s apart of the plan God has for me. And by the way, I know a lot of teen moms that are doing fantastic, finishing college, and starting new jobs
Hollywood glorifies teen pregnancy with shows like Secret Life of an American Teenager. Outliers aside, the reality is much worse. Of course, teen mothers have some of the same challenges as 35 year olds. The problem is that they generally have far more because tansitioning into adulthood is hard enough without having a child one is not prepared to raise, which is why less than 1% of teen parents graduate from college, less than 10% stay with the other parent of their child, and their children typically do worse in life. These ads merely state facts and give teens a heads up. It comes back to prevention being the ultimate solution. No one has to become a teen parent, which is why it is important to show teens so they can modify their behavior. Teens aren’t unteachable either when you look at the success of anti-smoking campaigns.
“way back, in ye ancient seventies”
This really made me smile. :)
Ooh, guess what, pro-choicers? Even Planned Parenthood thinks these ads are hostile and put a stigma on teen pregnancy. Hmm…
Moderates and conservatives are generally most opposed to teen pregnancy because they believe it’s a matter of personal reposnsibility. Teens choosing to parent costs tax payers billions a year. It’s a matter of the government picking up the slack for personal sexual behavior. Look at the comments sections on most mainstream sources. These ads are very popular due to their tough love approach: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/planned-parenthood-nyc-teen-pregnancy-psa-bloomberg-182816020.html
In my abstinence only class Pam Stenzel gave us similar warnings. I suspect Mayor Bloomberg’s liberal stances on other issues are why some on this site are critical of these ads.
Yeah…The more I look the more it seems that this approach is typically supported by conservatives:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/06/courageous-campaign-to-combat-teen-pregnancy/
I’ve found liberals to be split among pragmatic ones who see teen pregnancy as a social ill that fuels poverty and using harsh stats as a necessity and more ideological ones who hate any value judgement against sexual behavior.
The problem I have with these ads is it is placing the onus on the wrong thing. It’s not the *age* in the ‘teen mother’ that causes all those negatives (come on, humans have been perfectly capable of raising offspring as teenagers since the dawn of time, and I don’t know about you and yours, but me and mine are not particulalry less intelligent than my great-great grandparent’s (ad infinitium) generation) it’s the ‘unmarried/failed marriage’ part of that equation. Teen mom means single mom almost exclusively in today’s society. THAT’S where those bad statistics are from. Adjusting for marriage status children of teens fair the same as their socioeconomic peers. These ads don’t do much to address the real problbem. They might prevent some live births (abortion). Might help firm some flagging resolve for abstinence in a girl who is being pressured towards sex. But they don’t adress the real problem: the unnaturally long period of immaturity foisted upon ‘adolescents’ who would have been considered adults ripe for marriage and kids in pretty much any other culture which leads to premarital sex (through the ‘kids will be kids’ and ‘time to explore yourself’ additude) and unwed mothers (through the stigma of ‘young’ marriage and the societal expectation of failure for such). Of course it’s unpopular to have the baby say ‘i’m twice as likely not to graduate high school because I was raised in a single parent home’ and then follow with a message of marriage first and marriage commitment as that would actually have a chance at fixing the problem that ‘free love’ created.
“I kinda wonder, how many folks in the NY populace came from married and non-married teens only 2-3 generations back!”
Right, back when a woman’s education ended with high school (if she even graduated that), and the rest of her life was spent barefoot in the kitchen. Ah, the good old days.
I suspect Mayor Bloomberg’s liberal stances on other issues are why some on this site are critical of these ads.
Why is Planned Parenthood critical of these ads, then? Or perhaps you think PP is just a “closet conservative” group??
“Why is Planned Parenthood critical of these ads, then? ”
It’s a combination of political correctness and putting ideology over pragmatism. They believe in personal freedom without personal responsibility. Pragmatic liberals like Bloomberg and true conservatives(in the tradition Barry Goldwater and Calvin Coolidge) know that is not sustainable.
There she is! Hi Joan!
My grandma from Hungary came here to America when she was 3. She went to school til the 8th grade. She raised 3 children on a Pittsburgh steel-worker’s salary, and she gave life everything she had. Don’t know if she was barefoot a lot, but I do remember her garden and singing to me in the bathtub in Magyar. She lived a quiet life, both with good times and bad (2 children died), but I look to her as the seminal figure in my life who taught me about kindness, loving the Lord, and being humble.
She never got any fancy degrees and she never rose to any civic prominence. Oh, but I wish you could have seen the hundreds of people who lined up around the funeral home to say goodbye. I would cut off 2 of my fingers if I thought I could have 10 more minutes with her.
Barefoot? Like I said, not so sure. In the kitchen, you betcha. A life (and stuffed cabbage rollls) to be proud of. Miss you, Emma Fury.
Joan, your sarcasm makes you look so. incredibly. sad.
“I might not graduate high school, so you should probably just kill me now” ..Yep. Sounds like Satan
Also sounds like Barky — you know, the whole “babies as punishment” thing.
Just because something was in the past, Joan, doesn’t make it automatically bad. Yes, women had limited career options back in 1900, but starting families young has an advantage: young women and men have the energy to handle toddlers. AND, we were taught by my parents that things had to be earned. Too many kids today have been taught that things, things, and more things are owed to you by your parents, your government and society.
My grandparents and parents thought that you were responsible for yourself. Today, libertines and liberals think Big Government Nanny is responsible for your every whim.
Maybe you and your libertine friends would like adolescence to begin at age 9 and extend to 35?
She raised 3 children on a Pittsburgh steel-worker’s salary,
Courtney, back then steelworkers made pretty decent money, especially since many of them didn’t finish high school. My dad worked his way through professional school and raised a family on one of those steelworkers’ salaries.
Sadly, those good-paying jobs and those steel mills are long gone now and some of the oldest workers aren’t getting their pensions. It really is a shame.
I suspect Mayor Bloomberg’s liberal stances on other issues are why some on this site are critical of these ads.
So you believe the reason why we on this site (oh, and on Secular Pro-Life, too, since this is where the info came from) disapprove of these ads is because we don’t like Bloomberg? Not because the ads are tacky and really just have the effect of shaming pregnant teens after the fact instead of encouraging less risky behaviors?
Uh huh. Ok.
Is teen pregnancy a wonderful thing that i adocate? No but if it happens then killing the baby isnt the answer. One of my best friends had her first baby at 17. She was on welfare for a while and then went to nursing school and got off. Now her son is in college. I first became a mom at 21 but I had my LPN license at 19.
Susie Allen says:
March 7, 2013 at 8:46 am
How about adoption? If a teen gets pregnant 55 choose single parenting 25 % abortion and less than 1 % adoption
(Denise) I’ve been accused of being anti-adoption. I want to propose a way to make adoption much more popular. The tradition has been for women who go into hospitals to have babies to go home with the one they birthed. Instead, randomly assign the babies so everyone will be adopted.
I’ve been accused of being anti-adoption. I want to propose a way to make adoption much more popular. The tradition has been for women who go into hospitals to have babies to go home with the one they birthed. Instead, randomly assign the babies so everyone will be adopted.
Oh, Denise, I truly hope you’re joking.
Randomly assign babies? Lol. Well, it would have the side effect of no one being able to find a family donor for a kidney or whatever, so win?
Kel says:
March 7, 2013 at 6:22 pm
I’ve been accused of being anti-adoption. I want to propose a way to make adoption much more popular. The tradition has been for women who go into hospitals to have babies to go home with the one they birthed. Instead, randomly assign the babies so everyone will be adopted. Oh, Denise, I truly hope you’re joking.
(Denise) Why? Babies aren’t attached to the mothers out of which they are born. No harm is done when they go home with another mom.
Hi Joan! My Grandmother graduated high school, married, and had eight children (1 1/2 to 2 years apart) and raised them on her husband’s electrical engineer’s salary (all the children assisted with and each were responsible for a household chores. Barefoot in the kitchen? Hardly! She didn’t have time!) At 40, she divorced and with 3 young children still at home, she went back to college & earned both her undergraduate degree and master’s degree in special education & then taught in the public school system for 30 years & was involved in various community betterment projects. They had their fair share of normal family issues like family, but I’d say my mother & most of her siblings are pretty well adjusted. The whole “barefoot & pregnant in the kitchen” mantra was created by childfree and population control advocates in Margaret Singer’s time to stigmatize & discourage having large families & is hardly based off of the reality of these families.
*they had normal family issues like most families do
I can never quite decide if Denise Noe is our very own Jonathan Swift and we’re just not getting the satire.
Why? Babies aren’t attached to the mothers out of which they are born. No harm is done when they go home with another mom.
Now I *know* you’re being facetious, Denise. Of course babies form attachments to their mothers in utero. We all know this. The ideal is that a biological mother would parent her biological child. And biological mothers are attached to their biological children.
But if a mother isn’t able to parent for some reason, then adoption should be considered.
Not birth control in the water supply. Not mixing babies up and sending them home with whoever.
I don’t often say this to people, but I’m saying it to you: Look for some sort of sane middle ground, will ya?
Oops above post advocate
Is it the fact that the child was born to a teenager or the fact that she is not in a stable relationship with the child’s father in the home that determines the child failing to graduate from high school? I say it is the lack of a cohesive family unit that has more of an influence than her age.
ninek says:
March 7, 2013 at 6:07 pm
Just because something was in the past, Joan, doesn’t make it automatically bad. Yes, women had limited career options back in 1900
(Denise) People have gotten terribly confused because “work” has come to mean “the paid labor market.” Women have always “worked” but their work was often outside the paid labor market and in the domestic sphere. Think of the old saying, “A man works from sun to sun but a woman’s work is never done.” Working in the home has always been important. I heard a storyteller in a segment entitled “Crack of Dawn” discuss his “Aunt Laura Moody.” She had never married. She was what the narrator’s father described as a “floater” because she would live a few months with one family of relatives and then spend a few months with another family of relatives. Although she was not in the paid labor market, she definitely “worked” by taking over much of the household duties in the homes she lived in and some of the child care when there were kids in the home.
I blame it all on the sorry men who impregnate women and don’t take care of them.
truthseeker says:
March 7, 2013 at 7:32 pm
I blame it all on the sorry men who impregnate women and don’t take care of them.
(Denise) I once mentioned to an apartment manager, “When I was 15, a real handsome 24-year-old man asked to come over and visit me. I told him no.”
She said, “You had more sense than I did. A man asked me on a date when I was 15 and I talked my parents into letting me go. I had my son when I was only 15.”
This apartment manager isn’t doing all that bad and neither is her son.
Back in the 1970s, I was talking about a high school girl who had had a baby with the mother of a friend and that mother said, “I think it’s a tragedy.”
No offense, Denise, but I’m thinking of starting a drinking game based on your comments.
“So you believe the reason why we on this site (oh, and on Secular Pro-Life, too, since this is where the info came from) disapprove of these ads is because we don’t like Bloomberg?”
Yes…Conservatives give similar warnings all the time(I witnessed this firsthand during sex-ed at my Catholic school.) without facing similar controversy on here. Bill O’Reilly was just on saying that they ads were sensible and lamenting liberals who oppose stating such stats for basically contributing to an anything goes mentality.
“(Denise) I’ve been accused of being anti-adoption. I want to propose a way to make adoption much more popular. The tradition has been for women who go into hospitals to have babies to go home with the one they birthed. Instead, randomly assign the babies so everyone will be adopted.”
They’re coming to take me away haha hehe hoho to the funny farm, with basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes and they’re coming to take me away!
“I can never quite decide if Denise Noe is our very own Jonathan Swift and we’re just not getting the satire.”
I’m gonna go with no.
This is New York.
The people designing the ad and the people reading it already agree: Abortion cures the unwanted pregnancy.
Pro-lifers need to run campaigns alongside with this one. Something that says, “Abortion kills children.” With small-print data that mentions the child in the womb, and also the dangerous risks that abortive teenage mothers face.
@truthseeker
I blame it all on both of them for not growing the …. up.
Del- Exactly what I was thinking
How about “i’m 100% more likely not to graduate from high school because you aborted me as a teen”?
“I blame it all on both of them for not growing the …. up.”
U-104, that is what is supposed to happen. Having kids kinda requires that you grow up.
yep, that’s the heart of it: abortion lengthens adolescence in the parents. College students are practically expected to abort, so it won’t be long before NYC targets them with upset kiddie photos.
Kel says:
March 7, 2013 at 6:51 pm
Why? Babies aren’t attached to the mothers out of which they are born. No harm is done when they go home with another mom.
Now I *know* you’re being facetious, Denise. Of course babies form attachments to their mothers in utero. We all know this. The ideal is that a biological mother would parent her biological child. And biological mothers are attached to their biological children.
But if a mother isn’t able to parent for some reason, then adoption should be considered.
(Denise) An adopted person wrote to me saying, “I don’t think a baby cares who carries and gives birth. It’s what happens after the baby is born that matters.”
This person is adopted serial rapist-torturer-murderer Lawrence Bittaker, who is on California’s death row and has been there for the past 30 years. You might be interested to know from the “horse’s mouth” that he doesn’t believe “adoption is a flawed system” but that “the adopters may be less likely to be successful parents.” His was an in-family adoption in which relatives adopted him as an infant to take him off the hands of his birthmother who was divorced and, in the 1940s, completely unable to adequately care for a baby. He writes, “My adoptive parents weren’t affectionate or emotionally demonstrative people. I was never abused but was treated like a boarder or pet.” He formed no emotional connection with them or anyone else while growing up. He also believes he may have had a bad hand genetically. He writes, “I’m sure you’re aware of the nature vs. nurture controversy.” His biological father got in trouble in the military for stealing. His birthmother was a party girl and part-time prostitute. His now-deceased biological brother, raised in a different adoptive family, was an alcoholic with a history of failed marriages and businesses. Not serial murderers but not winners either. Thus, there could be biological problems as well as environmental ones. However, he does believe that had he received adequate affection from any source, it is likely he could have overcome whatever trauma resulted from the adoption or whatever genetic deficits he has. He doesn’t think his adoptive parents meant to harm him but that a strong emotional connection “was just not within their capabilities.”
An adopted person wrote to me saying, “I don’t think a baby cares who carries and gives birth. It’s what happens after the baby is born that matters.”
This person is adopted serial rapist-torturer-murderer Lawrence Bittaker, who is on California’s death row and has been there for the past 30 years.
So now we’re taking our cues on birth and adoption from… serial rapists and murderers? Are you for REAL? Are we being punk’d??
You might be interested to know from the “horse’s mouth” that he doesn’t believe “adoption is a flawed system” but that “the adopters may be less likely to be successful parents.”
No, I really am not interested. I have grown up with plenty of adoptees who were NOT serial killers or rapists. They are now doctors, teachers, and business professionals, who are also wonderful parents to children of their own.
So I really do not care what your serial rapist pen pal has to say. About anything.
“I’m twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.”
I am not in favor of teen parenthood, but I have a problem with this statement. If I interperet the message this is sending to sexually active teens correctly to mean “use contraception, or if it fails, get an abortion”, then, though it may be true that a child born to teen parents is twice as likely not to graduate as a child born to non-teen parents, his/her chance to graduate is still infinitely higher than if he/she had been aborted instead.
Having kids kinda requires that you grow up.
That’s the sad thing, though. Yeah, the logistics require a certain degree of maturity…but the day-to-day activities are actually WAY better with children if you know how to have fun with them on THEIR level. Everyone seems to think having kids automatically turns you into some uncool, totally square downer, and it really doesn’t if you’re doin’ it right. Being an offbeat goofball is actually a lot more fun if you have children around you who know how to enjoy it instead of just a bunch of hard-nosed adults giving you dirty looks.
X, it’s not having the kids that makes you uncool. It’s the minivan.
Courtnay ~ It’s not the minivan that makes you uncool … It’s the half inch layer of fishy crackers on the floor of him – ahem, I mean – it. (And naming him “Cubbie.”)
Kel says:
March 8, 2013 at 12:21 pm
An adopted person wrote to me saying, “I don’t think a baby cares who carries and gives birth. It’s what happens after the baby is born that matters.” This person is adopted serial rapist-torturer-murderer Lawrence Bittaker, who is on California’s death row and has been there for the past 30 years.
So now we’re taking our cues on birth and adoption from… serial rapists and murderers? Are you for REAL? Are we being punk’d??
(Denise) Adoptees are over-represented in certain categories of murder. Since Lawrence Bittaker is one of those, I wanted to know his thoughts on whether or not the fact of his being adopted contributed to his committing these types of crimes. You actually should count it as a plus for adoption that he doesn’t believe adoption per se contributed to it.
You might be interested to know from the “horse’s mouth” that he doesn’t believe “adoption is a flawed system” but that “the adopters may be less likely to be successful parents.”
No, I really am not interested. I have grown up with plenty of adoptees who were NOT serial killers or rapists. They are now doctors, teachers, and business professionals, who are also wonderful parents to children of their own.
(Denise) Of course. Children of unwed teenagers often finish high school and some get Ph.D.s. As with adoption, a statistical link exists with things that are negative but many adoptees and many people born to single teenagers do just fine.
The wonderful Gospel singer Ethel Waters was born to a 13-year-old black girl who had been raped when she was 12 by a white man wielding a knife. Anything is possible.
<<So I really do not care what your serial rapist pen pal has to say. About anything.>>
(Denise) Again, his experience is relevant to certain statistical links.
However, his buddy and partner in crime, Roy Norris, was not adopted. Norris is believed to have lived in an incestuous relationship with his biological mother. Incest doesn’t necessarily lead to a man becoming a serial rapist, torturer, and murderer but it is statistically linked to negative things. This doesn’t mean when need to automatically lock up every man who has enjoyed a sexual relationship with his mother but I don’t have any problem saying it is probably not the best way to raise healthy men.
Would this ad be OK if it was specifically aimed at teen girls who are NOT PREGNANT? It doesn’t seem wrong to encourage teen girls who are not pregnant to wait on getting pregnant.
Isn’t it in fact TRUE that babies born to teen mothers are only half as likely to graduate from high school as those born to adult mothers?
The first thing I thought when I saw these ads was that they were giving reasons why teens should abort their pregnancies.
It’s possible that the ad campaign does not intend this, especially since Planned Parenthood spoke out against the ads. Pregnant, unmarried teens are the main body of the PP abortion cash cow. They urge “sex education”, from kindergarten through high school, that strongly encourages free and open sexual activity with multiple partners. they emphasize that such sex has no conditions or consequences. So it is understandable that they would be against these ads, but not because they are in poor taste.
Nevertheless, the ads, in my opinion, are in poor taste. They seem to be scare tactics, though PP has no room for accusing anyone of using those. The statements are probably true, but could have been better spoken. I can see them driving teens to have abortions, but I’m not sure I see them driving teens to get real help.
The reason I say “these ads” is because I’ve seen four of them. It is telling that of the four, three are clearly minority members, two black, one possibly Hispanic/Latino.
Planned Parenthood is known (though not widely enough known) for targeting areas populated largely by blacks, Hispanic/Latinos, or both. So maybe they really aren’t against the ads. Maybe they want their agenda of abortion on demand and “racial purity” promoted. It could be that public disagreement with the ads is a smoke screen or done as a matter of political correctness, since they do seem to try to discourage teen pregnancy.
Oh, heck no, I cannot drink this much before sundown!
That’s like 3 or 4 shots already… I’m so liver my drunk is begging for mercy!
“So now we’re taking our cues on birth and adoption from… serial rapists and murderers? Are you for REAL?”
Speaking of criminals, don’t even get me started on Kinsey!!!
I gagged at “enjoyed a sexual relationship with his mother”. FFS Denise.
*unsubscribes*
JackBorsch says:
March 8, 2013 at 4:10 pm
I gagged at “enjoyed a sexual relationship with his mother”. FFS Denise.
(Denise) Sorry about that. Bad phrasing. I believe he was an adult when living in incest with his mother but it was still bad phrasing.
*hiccup…..thunk!*
ninek says:
March 8, 2013 at 4:05 pm
“So now we’re taking our cues on birth and adoption from… serial rapists and murderers? Are you for REAL?” Speaking of criminals, don’t even get me started on Kinsey!!!
(Denise) I’m on friendly terms with Dr. Judith Reisman who is in large part responsible for exposing Kinsey’s sexual criminality and reliance on active pedophiles for so-called “data.”
Hmmm. Someone’s facebook friends list must be a real gallery of rogues. Obviously you didn’t take my unsolicited advice to attend a Walk for Life and make some new friends. Pro-lifers are nice. But I guess nice is boring.
Darn, couldn’t edit. I think that when people surround themselves with certain things, they get an unbalanced view of the world. Don’t you think indulging your fascination with criminals has affected your judgement over the years? I don’t expect a satisfying answer.
I have friend who works with women who have been abused and/or raped. I asked her once of her abhorrence of heterosexual relationships might be related to her years in that field. “Of course not!” she protested, while she sailed down the river in Egypt.
Now it’s coming out who all these anonymous fruit loop anecdotes are. I know a person who; I have a friend who; I once heard someone say; my serial rapist pal told me all I need to know about adoptees. etc. The evidence is in and I move for summary judgment.
Ct, but they all have a brother whose neighbor knows Kevin Bacon. lol!
ninek says:
March 8, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Hmmm. Someone’s facebook friends list must be a real gallery of rogues. Obviously you didn’t take my unsolicited advice to attend a Walk for Life and make some new friends. Pro-lifers are nice. But I guess nice is boring.
(Denise) My friend Dr. Judith Reisman is a respectable conservative working against pornography. Look her up on the web. She was one of those who discovered and publicized the wrongs Dr. Alfred Kinsey had done.
Both adoption and single motherhood have strong STATISTICAL LINKS to things that are negative.
One thing I should probably add about adoptee serial rapist-torturer-murderer Lawrence Bittaker is that he is cooperating with psychologists and other experts who interview and study him. Even on death row — where he has been for over 30 years now — he has the right to refuse therapy and refuse to be interviewed. He is cooperating because, he says, “It’s the right thing to do. Maybe something good will come out of this mess.”
Back to Jill’s original question…
I don’t doubt the sincerity of the New York libs such as Bloomberg and Quinn in wanting an end to teen pregnancy and the success of young women. I also don’t doubt that they are rabidly pro-abortion, as evidenced by the passage of Bill 371 two years ago, a bill intended to keep women away from pregnancy resource centers.
If these ads work to keep girls from getting pregnant and off welfare, great.
If these ads drive girls to Planned Parenthood, great.
If these ads drive girls to abortion, great.
That’s how the NY libs see it. A diabolical win-win.
@ Gerard: Would the ads be acceptable if it was clear they were aimed at teen girls who are not pregnant?
Don’t we want to prevent unwed teen girls from GETTING pregnant in the first place?
The fact is that the chances of having a successful life are much greater for those born to an adult married woman in a happy and stable marriage. That doesn’t mean that everyone born to a single teenager will end up in prison or homeless but shouldn’t we want to increase the odds of success?
“Would the ads be acceptable if it was clear they were aimed at teen girls who are not pregnant?”
How exactly could the ads be targeted in such a way? As far as I know, both pregnant and non-pregnant teens are able to see them, regardless of who they’re intended for.
I’m twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.
Prolifers need to hang posters with a photo of a preborn child with the words: I have zero chance of graduating high school if you abort me as a teen.
JDC says:
March 9, 2013 at 12:26 pm
“Would the ads be acceptable if it was clear they were aimed at teen girls who are not pregnant?”How exactly could the ads be targeted in such a way? As far as I know, both pregnant and non-pregnant teens are able to see them, regardless of who they’re intended for.
(Denise) Are you a teen girl who is not pregnant but thinks you would like to get pregnant soon?
Are you a teen girl who is not heterosexually active with a partner but thinking of having partnered heterosexual sex?
“(Denise) Are you a teen girl who is not pregnant but thinks you would like to get pregnant soon?Are you a teen girl who is not heterosexually active with a partner but thinking of having partnered heterosexual sex?”
No, I’m an adult man, what’s your point?
JDC says:
March 9, 2013 at 12:42 pm
“(Denise) Are you a teen girl who is not pregnant but thinks you would like to get pregnant soon?Are you a teen girl who is not heterosexually active with a partner but thinking of having partnered heterosexual sex?”No, I’m an adult man, what’s your point?
(Denise) Preface an ad with these questions to make it clear that they are not aimed at persuading anyone to abort but at dissuading unwed teen girls from GETTING pregnant.
“(Denise) Preface an ad with these questions to make it clear that they are not aimed at persuading anyone to abort but at dissuading unwed teen girls from GETTING pregnant.”
Oh, my bad, I thought you were asking me those questions. But my point still stands. Even if the ads indicate who they are directed at, others can still see them and be influenced.
Why should opposition to abortion automatically mean pretending there are no problems with pregnancies among those who are young and unmarried?
“Why should opposition to abortion automatically mean pretending there are no problems with pregnancies among those who are young and unmarried?”
Who said that opposition to abortion means anything like that?
JDC says:
March 9, 2013 at 7:02 pm
“Why should opposition to abortion automatically mean pretending there are no problems with pregnancies among those who are young and unmarried?”Who said that opposition to abortion means anything like that?
(Denise) It seems like people are scared that pointing out these problems doesn’t mean that teen girls won’t get pregnant in the first place but that they must inevitably get pregnant and abort.
“It seems like people are scared that pointing out these problems doesn’t mean that teen girls won’t get pregnant in the first place but that they must inevitably get pregnant and abort.”
Why would it be one or the other? It seems that if both groups receive the messages, both will act accordingly.
@JDC: Thus, some young ladies will see this ad and decide to abstain from the sort of sex that can lead to pregnancy or to use effective contraceptives.
Others will either abort or place for adoption.
I guess there’s a trade-off. There so often is in life.
I pretty sure this ad was trying to prevent teens from having sex in the first place, but it will probably just encourage young women to have abortions. So if I might put my two cents in, I don’t like this ad.
I think the most important thing societies can do to prevent abortion is to encourage adoption, have social supports in place for those women who want to raise unplanned children, encourage absitinence, help people understand that abortion kills babies and provide education on how to effectively use birth control and provide birth control. So, that’s my plan if I ever become leader of the world.
And this is coming from a pro-choice person. I think there is a lot of common ground to be found in both movements and we could probably save more babies if we worked together.
Sandra Harris says:
March 11, 2013 at 11:51 am
I pretty sure this ad was trying to prevent teens from having sex in the first place, but it will probably just encourage young women to have abortions. So if I might put my two cents in, I don’t like this ad.I think the most important thing societies can do to prevent abortion is to encourage adoption
(Denise) Are you aware of the special problems adoptees have?
Email me at Janatrude@aol.com for specific info on this.
Adoption will always be necessary. Girls and women will die in childbirth, be too severely handicapped to care for a baby, or for other reasons be unable to raise their children. However, should we encourage women to have babies and sever the link nature has created between mother and baby?
Adoptive mother Nancy Verrier has authored “Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child” about the problems a baby inevitably has when separated from the mother.
I do support adoption in some cases. For example, if a baby survives an abortion, I believe the biological mother has forfeited her right to custody.
I also strongly support open adoption and making open-ness legally enforceable. Currently, a so-called open adoption does not grant continuing LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE rights to the birthmother.